<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (8) TMI 359 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91666</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the enhancement of the CIF value of imported garbage. The authorities had increased the value based on comparisons with sorted goods, but the Tribunal determined that the nature of the unsorted garbage imported differed significantly, justifying the appellant&#039;s declared price. Additionally, discrepancies were noted in references to alleged prior imports where enhancements were accepted, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the authorities erred in assuming the appellant&#039;s acceptance. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the enhancement of the value was unjustified and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:58:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 359 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91666</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the enhancement of the CIF value of imported garbage. The authorities had increased the value based on comparisons with sorted goods, but the Tribunal determined that the nature of the unsorted garbage imported differed significantly, justifying the appellant&#039;s declared price. Additionally, discrepancies were noted in references to alleged prior imports where enhancements were accepted, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the authorities erred in assuming the appellant&#039;s acceptance. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the enhancement of the value was unjustified and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91666</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>